[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 20 (Wednesday, February 1, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E246]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


       PROPOSING A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

                                 ______


                               speech of

                         HON. MICHAEL F. DOYLE

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 26, 1995

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the joint resolution (H.J. 
     Res. 1) proposing a balanced budget amendment to the 
     Constitution of the United States:

  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to support House Resolution 28, the bipartisan, bicameral 
balanced budget amendment. We have spent considerable time in this 
House debating and discussing the merits of competing balanced budget 
amendment proposals. The message that has resonated through this debate 
is this country's desperate need to balance its budget.
  Currently, our national debt exceeds $4.3 trillion. Since this House 
last voted on a balanced budget amendment in March 1994, our debt has 
increased by more than $160 billion dollars. The gross interest 
payments on this debt alone are costing us $816 million per day. In 
fact, these interest payments have increased so significantly that 14 
percent of the entire Federal budget is devoted to interest payments on 
the debt. Therein lies the insidious nature of this deficit debacle.
  As the interest payments continue to skyrocket. Devouring larger and 
larger portions of the budget, there is a devastating regressive effect 
on the rest of the budget. These interest payments are severely 
hampering our ability to fund important discretionary programs. While 
future generations will suffer increasingly from this effect, the 
problem is also very real in the present. Our interest payments this 
year alone will be 8 times higher than expenditures on education and 50 
times higher than expenditures on job training.
  My constituents in western Pennsylvania will need continued 
assistance from job retraining and economic development programs. This 
is why I stand today in support of this balanced budget amendment. The 
Mon-Valley needs the help of innovative and intelligent Federal 
programs to assist in the retraining of displaced workers so they are 
prepared to join new, high-technology industries. Programs are needed 
to cleanup the abandoned industrial sites so fresh businesses will 
locate there bringing with them secure jobs in these growing 
industries. These are just the types of programs that are being crowded 
out by the increasing interest payments on our debt.
  It is imperative that a balanced budget amendment passes both Houses 
of this Congress so that it can move to the States for the ratification 
process. Only then will people throughout the country be afforded the 
opportunity to closely examine how the amendment would work and what 
specific actions would be necessary to achieve a balanced budget early 
in the 21st century. However, the only way our citizens will have that 
opportunity is if we move now to pass the Stenholm/Schaefer 
alternative.
  It is the only alternative that is purely bipartisan in nature and 
has a chance of also passing in the Senate. This is a practical reality 
that cannot be overlooked.
  Language in this amendment would require a three-fifths vote in both 
Houses to allow an increase in our national debt level which gives this 
alternative the strong safeguard necessary for it to be effective, and 
I sincerely hope my colleagues will recognize the power of this 
rigorous balance. The Stenholm/Schaefer amendment unites the underlying 
principles of all versions of the balanced budget amendment. We cannot 
let another opportunity to pass this amendment slip away. I urge my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the Stenholm/Schaefer 
alternative now, and when we take a vote on final passage.


                          ____________________